March 20th notes + question for online discussion

On Friday we progressed to Philip Freneau. We were faced with the task of determining what neoclassic traits Freneau's work possesses. We saw that it contains a predictable style and nationalism, which brings neoclassicism. However, Freneau's work is very emotional, and it was agreed by the class that his work his pre-Romantic, like Phillis Wheatly. Yet Wheatly is more logical than the emotional Freneau. Freneau's Romantic leanings are best demonstrated in the poem "The Wild Honey-Suckle." Which both glorifies nature and contains less of a "practical" purpose. It is "art for the sake of art." That notion is a Romantic one. We were then told what Romanticism is. Essentially it is/was a movement in the arts in which artists, and the rest of society to an extent, glorified the artist. The artist was seen as someone different, a god almost, who can make things appear with the simple use of his creativity and imagination. Mr. Lazarow then told us that this belief usually dies after a period of war or other pervasive unpleasantness. That it is a lofty, impossible to attain ideal.

Do you agree with the Romantic notion? Do you think it is a good philosophy of life? I'll give a personal example of someone I know who embodies this way of life. One of my friends is an artist, a really good artist at that. He's an interesting person in many ways, one of the more notable aspects not being that, despite being one of the smartest and most creative people I've ever met, he failed high school on purpose because of, what he calls, his "morals." To describe him a bit more, he's more "cultured" than most teachers at this school, having read everything from "Also Sprach Zarathustra" and "The Magic Mountain" to obscure Japanese art comics. Creativity-wise his paintings are phenomenal. He had the acumen to get elected vice-president of the student association with a terrific video, yet he continually annoys the organizer of it by not showing up to any meetings and simply not caring. Despite his amazing character, he, as of the last month, goes to Burlington County Alternative. He has no solid plan for the future, once deciding to move to France right after graduation, then reconsidering and choosing either Japan or Sweden. After he realized that he disliked moving away to a country so simply, he wanted to become a sailor. This was all in one year, his senior year. To offer a contrast, his dad was a pretty major film artist in the 60's, working with Andy Warhol and Dali. However, his dad paid for therapy sessions for my friend, and is not exactly altogether pleased with his future plans, or rather, lack thereof. My friend, through all this, is confident in his set of beliefs.

It is my belief that the Romantic ideal is a necessary one. However, an attachment to a reality should also be present. It is ludicrous to straightforwardly believe in a perfect world such as one that a Romantic may argue for. But if this ideal were lost, good art, free from the constraints of solely profit, would be lost as well. Many of the artists we now consider the "greatest" were at their own time, starving or suffering from persecution. When an artist defies commonly accepted 'rules', he or she is nearly always met with resistance from critics. If there were no beliefs that argued for an asthete ideal, many of these artists would have little to fall back on as reassurance.

- Alexander Altaras